Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR, et al. v. RALPH MORTIER, et al. (1991)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR, et al. v. RALPH MORTIER, et al.
Term: 1990
Important Dates
Argued: April 24, 1991
Decided: June 21, 1991
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Harry BlackmunAnthony KennedyThurgood MarshallSandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistDavid SouterJohn Paul StevensByron White
Concurring
Antonin Scalia

WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR, et al. v. RALPH MORTIER, et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 1991. The case was argued before the court on April 24, 1991.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the Wisconsin State Trial Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1990s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Federalism - federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation. cf. state regulation of business. rarely involves union activity. Does not involve constitutional interpretation unless the Court says it does.
  • Petitioner: Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact
  • Petitioner state: Wisconsin
  • Respondent type: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 501 U.S. 597
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Byron White

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes